It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I personally think the hype didn't come out of the blue @RC7. I prefer to compare 'Skyfall' with 'The Dark Knight'. It had a similar kind of impact. Reactions on both journalist screening views were ecstatic. I saw some of the early reaction on YouTube after the British screening mid October 2012......and they were indeed like.......a bunch of fanboys getting crazy of happiness. That fact alone resulted in a snowball-effect.
Speaking of CR, I personally don't hold it in such a high place as some people, and I would never consider it as the best Bond film ever. It is certainly very good and top 10 for me (mainly because of Craig/Green/Mikkelsen) but a fair amount of cringe worthy moments (the worst being the "dinner jackets and dinner jackets" conversation) ultimately damages it in my view.
I'm mainly talking about the first reactions from screening audiences (newspapers, journalists, movie website editors, etc.) in the UK mid October 2012 :-).
I know, this is what I'm saying. Most of the general public walked into a film that had been critically lauded. It puts you in a certain mindset. I'm just suggesting this might be why some people were underwhelmed. It might not be the product but the expectation that moulds your initial opinion.
Partially you are right..but I also recall the first screening audience reactions of 'Quantum Of Solace', and those were not that good. Personally I think there usually isn't a huge difference between what screening audiences and generic cinema audiences think of a movie. Moreover, my mum and dad certainly didn't hear from journalists/newspapers that 'Skyfall' was a masterpiece. They just wanted to see a Bond film.
I've been trying to stay out of these debates just for this reason. A very vocal minority who likes to try and verbally beat down those who like the film.
For the newer fans here who've joined in with the gang, I saw Thunderball in the theater at the age of about 7 in 1968. Long before most of the SF detractors were even a twinkle in Daddy's sperm bank. The last thing I need is for someone telling me what I should and shouldn't think about a Bond film. There's different ways of looking at different scenes that I am happy to explore, but you can't talk to people who don't want to hear what you are saying and so certain know-it-alls around here I generally avoid nowadays.
Like yourself, public knowledge here, I've said SF has it's share of faults like most Bond films and I am not blind to them. But these know-it-alls paid no attention to that in their rush to trample the many positive things about the film. I don't think it was better than CR but I certainly don't think QOS was better either. The Bond of CR/QOS is not the Bond of SF- the latter is the Bond we all should want to see and have seen for most of the series, who demonstrates all the classic elements of Bond. Somehow, some of the newer fans who joined in with Craig don't seem to realize that.
Yes, and I partially agree with you no ;-)? You are not generalising now at all. But I do think that the underwhelming reactions from cinema audiences were larger in total with QOS than with SF.
By the way, I heard this remark 'Best Bond ever' most of the time when a new Bond film premiered. It's usually a trigger to find out yourself if you ask me. And this time around with SF, i think more people agreed with that overblown journalist reaction 'Best Bond ever'.
That's very much a possibility :)
But personally I believe the critics gave rave reviews and people got caught up in the hype . But it isn't a very unanimous feeling the same which was felt with Casino Royale
But like you said only time will tell.
If you give a read to what the other Bond boards have to say , you'll see the Skyfall praise isn't shared by all.
Hmm...Never thought about that!
Obviously I cannot predict with any certainty what people will think of SF in twenty years time. But what I can at least guess is that when the next Bond arrives, and SF is three, four, five movies in the past, many of those claiming it's the best Bond ever will have changed their tune. A new generation will be cheering on Henry Cavill or Fassbender (or whoever it is) and DC will start looking a little bit dated and old hat to the younger fans. They'll wonder why Bond was so miserable all the time and why he had so little luck with the ladies or how on earth people thought it was cool to shag former child sex workers etc. It's normal and inevitable. That's not to say lots of people won't still like it. Just that I am reasonably confident that it will assume a position of normality within the series - perhaps highly regarded by some but also recognised for its numerous flaws and weaknesses by others.
Agreed ^
I pretty much grew up with Brosnan but he was never my favorite and I was never sold on his films that much and iirc it was mainly during the Brosnan era that we were really getting all these ludicrous best Bond ever headlines. To me, Connery was and still is the best Bond ever and interestingly enough, most of his movies don't look as dated as some of Moore's.
So are adult women, who used to be child sex workers, not allowed to have a sex life?
Apparently not I figured because it was consensual it was cool and felt like Bond was being heroic trying to save her but i guess not
Just adding my agreement with everything Sandy and SirHenry have said.
I really must have been watching a different film.
Bond tries to 'save' Severine? In what scene exactly? I thought he shagged her, used her to find Silva and then stood by while she was killed.
In days of yore 'trying to save' really used to mean something entirely different.
Yes, if you want to insist on the argument Severine is entitled to a sex life, my point was in relation to Bond's behaviour and actions - not exactly classy, particularly given the unprecedented level of detail the film gives about her abuse as a child. But if that's the kind of stuff you like in a Bond movie then fair enough - frankly you're more than welcome to it.
I might point out by way of contrast that in QoS Forster made the very wise decision (IMO) that Bond does not attempt to bed Camile - she is a damaged and vulnerable woman who Bond sees as a human being and not just another lay. This is, to me, more in keeping with the DC screen Bond's character and values and further illustrates how different the character is in SF from CR and QoS.
For the next Bond film, I wouldn't mind Camile coming back, just realizing that - but not as as huge part of the story. Maybe they could meet en route somewhere, and we could see that she, too, has carried on with her life. That would be nice, especially if there is a Quantum aspect to the story line.
Interesting to see the actress is in a Terence Mallick flick. She is in that small band of Bond actresses who have actually managed to go on and have a thriving career post Bond. And to think she previously appeared in a Jason Stratham movie!
Logistically, I don't see the filmmakers bringing her back, but story-wise I see no reason she couldn't. Barb is even on record in 2009 stating she'd love to bring the character back. BUT, Skyfall does seem to hint that CR and QoS are far off from the events portrayed in SF, so to go back to that arc would kind of be pointless. If Skyfall is indeed much farther in Bond's career, we don't need to revisit that arc.
A realistic list:
Joe Wright
David Yates
Danny Boyle
Duncan Jones
Edgar Wright
Tom Hooper
Christopher Nolan
And that's sticking to strictly British directors. There is quite a selection for them to sift through, and I have no doubt they could get any of these guys on board. However,
Boyle has repeatedly said he wouldn't want the pressure of a Bond film, Nolan has a film coming out in November 2014 that he isn't likely to delay or leave, and E. Wright and David Yates are likely too far off the producers' radar.
Duncan Jones is reportedly doing that Ian Fleming biopic, so they may snag him instead for Bond 24.
My most likely choice, since they liked Mendes so much, would be Joe Wright. My favorites though have to be Yates, E. Wright, and Boyle.
Now that I've thought about it, I'm rooting for Ken. I think he'd bring seriousness at the right moments along with an infectious sense of fun - something I think has been missing for too long. (And just for the record, by 'fun' I DON'T mean death spewing lasers, raised eyebrows or double-taking monkeys).
'Ken' who?
Branagh.
He's only recently occured to me and is a bit of a left field choice, but then so was Mendes.
He recently directed Thor, which I thought was actually really rather good. It's mindless Hollywood popcorn nonsense of the more enjoyable kind. However, what makes Branagh qualified for Bond is that he is really known for his 'serious' thespy acting and directing. Thor just showed that he has it in him to do big budget action entertainment as well. Plus, Thor included Anthony Hopkins and Edris Elba - the bones of a Bond 24 dream cast any one...?
I once stood behind him in a queue (he was just there waiting in line to pay for something), ages ago, didn't have the courage to tell him anything but good afternoon to which he politely answered back.
The guy who did Thor, Not a bad idea !